logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.04.16 2014고정4267
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동폭행)
Text

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000, respectively.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, 100.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendants around 07:40 on August 31, 2014, around 07:0, around 503, the victim E (Influence, 55 years old) residing on the same floor as before the building D, and the rooftop opening and closing of the building, Defendant A, in the end of the city project, has affixed the parts of the victim by his arms and elbow, and Defendant B, in her hand, had a close side by her hand.

Accordingly, the Defendants jointly assaulted the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. CCTV video CDs;

1. Damage photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the injury diagnosis certificate;

1. Article 2(2) and (1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Amended by Act No. 12896, Dec. 30, 2014); Article 2(1)1 of the Criminal Act; Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act; the selection of fines

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, each of the provisional payment orders;

1. The defendant B and the defense counsel's assertion of the defendant B and the defense counsel under Article 186 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which bear the burden of litigation costs, asserts that even if the part of the defendant B's assault is recognized, it constitutes self-defense as an act committed by the victim's attempt to escape from the victim while the defendant B is divided into the defendant B's corridor.

In light of the method and degree of the Defendant’s assault recognized by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court, the content, part, and degree of the victim’s wife, etc., the victim’s unilateral unlawful attack and the Defendant B cannot be deemed as exercising the tangible power as a means of resistance to protect himself/herself from such attack and escape therefrom. Defendant B’s act committed by the victim cannot be deemed as a new affirmative attack, and thus, it cannot be deemed as having a reasonable ground to view it as acceptable by social norms. Accordingly, the above assertion is rejected.

arrow